A couple of centuries ago, violence and robbery were common in most towns and cities especially after dark when the streets were as black as err, night.
Forward-thinking civic leaders had the idea of placing torches at strategic locations and found thefts and accidents declined in the immediate vicinity.
In the 1820s gas lighting was introduced and was gradually replaced by electricity during the 1900s, further improving personal safety.
Unlike Lark Rise or Candleford, street lighting became an essential amenity for any ‘civilised’ community and towns competed to provide the safest and most sophisticated lighting for residents, shoppers and visitors.
Oh, what fools they were. Had they but listened to Cheshire East they’d have saved themselves 200 years of strife and remained (dare I say?) in the dark.
Wilmslow residents around Thorngrove Road are currently ‘benefitting’ from a scheme to reduce carbon emissions in their area (nothing to do with cost-cutting – honest) by turning off the street lamps.
Tim O’Brien, an astrophysicist at Manchester University, based at Jodrell Bank observatory, said: "We are supportive of the campaign [for dark skies], as there are a number of wonderful things to see in our skies, such as the Milky Way."
Might be a bit of a problem there, Tim. Glancing up at the galaxy as you trip down a pothole may not give the feeling of oneness with the universe imagined especially if you’re trapped under the wheels of a Volvo.
Kelly Gunnell from the Bat Conservation Trust said: "Artificial night lighting is disturbing to many bat species including some of our rarest and most vulnerable."
So there you go. You can either gaze at the Milky Way in the company of flying mammals or illuminate the streets and make it home without being mugged or mangled.
The choice is yours.
The views on this page are Vic Barlow's and not necessarily those of the Express
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
Well it is Cheshire East so what other stupidity would you expect.
A few seconds on the Cheshire East site produced this:
"Street Lighting Energy Saving Trial in Wilmslow
As part of Cheshire East Council’s commitment to reduce carbon emissions and energy usage, it is intended to carry out a series of short term trials in the Thorngrove Road, Longmeade Gardens and Cragside Way residential area of Wilmslow, starting in the first week of February 2011.
Phase one of the trial will involve switching-off 80% of the street lights in the area between the hours of 11pm and 6am, leaving 20% lit as normal, at road junctions and remote footpaths, in order to provide minimum lighting. This will reduce the energy consumption of each lamp by 50% and will produce a combined carbon emission saving for the scheme of 4.22 tonnes per year.
Phase two of the trial will involve including the other 20% of lamps in the switching-off trial between the hours of 11pm and 6am with resultant increased savings.
The Council welcomes feedback from individuals and service providers affected by the trials and this feedback will help determine future policies within the Council. Your feedback can be provided by one of the following means:-
Online using the Street Lighting Questionnaire.
By telephone: 0300 123 5020, or
By letter to: Cheshire East Council, Street Lighting Trials, Westfields, Middlewich Road, Sandbach, Cheshire CW11 1HZ
The roads affected are:- Thorngrove Road, Thorngrove Hill, Thorngrove Drive, Longmeade Gardens, Land Lane and Public Footpath, Cragside Way, Burnside Close, Leaside Way, Glenside Drive and Croftside Way."
Seems quite reasonable to me.
It's a TRIAL, which means that it is being tried out.
Minimum lighting is being maintained.
There are multiple ways to express a view about this.
Also anyone can call the council or their Councillor to talk about this.
What did they say when you called them Mr Barlow?
You did call them, didn't you?
You could also have a trial to see if putting your nad into a fire would burn you.
You do not need to waste time and money on such things. I do not suppose that what anyone says, but you will dfisagree as usual.
We don't need a trial to know that fire will burn your nad (whatever that is), that would be a bit silly. However in this case the LA seems to be acting quite sensibly by conducting a trial to find out what the real impact will be in the real world.
I would pressume for nad he means Hand, so that would not be a silly remark..It is however blatantly obvious that you do not need a worthless trial to confirm the obvious.
You miss the point. There is plenty of evidence already that sticking bits of your body into flames is going to hurt, so we can agree that testing that would certainly be silly. However, in this case we don't know what the outcome would be so testing in the real world, rather than speculating on the basis of lack of knowledge, seems to be a sensible idea.
And, if the end result is that us Council Tax payers can save a bit or our hard earned money, then that would be great. But we won't know unless the Council tries to find out.
There is plenty of evidence that the lack of street lights assists in committing crime. That is the reason street lights were introduced in the first place, to make the streets a safer place for the law abiding citizen.